In the discussion of how whistle
blowers going under cover are not protected by egregious ag-gag laws, now overturned by a very recent judicial
decision by Federal Judge James Gritzner, this is a very important decision, from about three weeks ago. In the state of Iowa, powerful agricultural
and animal processing interests used their influence in the legislature and
with then Gov. Terry Branstad, in 2012, to pass some very repressive laws that
had strongly prohibited undercover probes at many different facilities, called
affectionately the "AG-GAG" law. This was recently found to be entirely
unconstitutional by a Federal Judge in the Southern District of Iowa.

The "agriculture production facility fraud" measure was
passed with bipartisan support in the Iowa Legislature and signed into law by Branstad,
who said he favored it because it was "important that we protect farmers from
people who are trying to illegally disrupt their operations."

From the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Trish Mehaffy's article:

But animal welfare activists, who were
part of a lawsuit filed in 2017, said the law prevented them from documenting
cruel and inhumane practices at facilities like farms, slaughterhouses and
puppy mills.

In his ruling, U.S. Southern District of Iowa Senior Judge
James Gritzner said that when the state seeks to regulate speech, "it bears the
heavy burden of showing that the prohibition satisfies constitutional
scrutiny." He ruled the state had not met that burden and questioned the
state's rationale for justifying the law.

- Advertisement -

Idaho and Utah federal judges also have struck down similar
laws.

The suit was brought on behalf of several clients by the
ACLU of Iowa, along with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Law Offices of
Matthew Strugar, Public Justice and the Center for Food Safety.

Two Iowa clients involved are Iowa Citizens for Community
Improvement, an organization that says it focuses on factory farms to advance
worker justice, and Bailing Out Benji, an organization that says it protects the
welfare of dogs.

"An especially grievous harm to our democracy occurs when the
government uses the power of the criminal laws to target unpopular speech to
protect those with power which is exactly what this law was always about,"
said Rita Bettis Austen, ACLU of Iowa legal director, in a statement. "It has
effectively silenced advocates and ensured that animal cruelty, unsafe food
safety practices, environmental hazards, and inhumane working conditions go
unreported for years."

The law threatened up to a year in jail for those
individuals who use undercover means or provide false identities to document or
report on activities in the agricultural animal facilities. In some
circumstances, the law criminalized whistle-blowing.

The defendants Gov. Kim Reynolds, Iowa
Attorney General Tom Miller and Montgomery County Attorney Bruce Swanson did
not met the burden of proof needed to uphold the law, the judge decided. He
previously had ruled that it was a "content-based law" one that targets
speech based on its content, which is considered unconstitutional but may be
justified if the state proves it was narrowly tailored to serve compelling
state interests. According to the ruling, the defendants asserted the law
protects the state's interests of private property and agriculture biosecurity.
They provided statements from lawmakers and Branstad in support of the public
purposes.

But the record "makes clear" these were not the only reasons
driving the law, the judge noted. Some lawmakers also wanted to stop
"subversive acts" by "groups that go out and gin up campaigns " to give the
agricultural industry a bad name."

- Advertisement -

Gritzner said the defendants didn't produce any evidence to
show that prohibiting rights is necessary to protecting perceived harms to
property and biosecurity. There's nothing in the record to show how biosecurity
is threatened by a person making a false statement to get access to, or
employment in, an ag production facility.

Regarding private property concerns, Gritzner said, there
already is a law to prevent individuals from entering a property "without
consent of an owner."

In the years leading up to the enactment of the law, there
were at least 10 undercover investigations of factory farms in Iowa, according
to the ACLU. Since the law passed, there have been no investigations.

Early in the 2016 Primary campaign, I started a Facebook group: Bernie Sanders: Advice and Strategies to Help Him Win! As the primary season advanced, we shifted the focus to advancing Bernie's legislation in the Senate, particularly the most (more...)

The proof is in the pudding, so good riddance to a draconian right wing sponsored corporate-manipulated unconstitutional junk law fostered by a six time governor of Iowa, and now Trump's Ambassador to China.

Iowa's Ag-Gag law criminalized undercover investigations at a broad range of animal facilities including factory farms, puppy mills, and slaughterhouses, preventing advocates from exposing animal cruelty and environmental, workers' rights, and food safety violations. The law achieved its goal of suppressing undercover investigations no investigations have taken place since the law's passage in 2012.